October Term 2022 · Docket 21-869

Does a new artistic message justify copying a copyrighted photo?

The dispute centers on whether a new artistic message justifies copying a copyrighted photo.

Official caption
Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Blatt stated fair use is an affirmative defense.

    She explained Factor 1 focuses on the purpose of the copy.

    Mr. Martinez argued both lower courts agreed on the different message.

    He stated the question is whether that message matters for fair use.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the fair use defense. It asks if a new message justifies copying a photo.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 12, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The Foundation wants the Court to accept a new message as fair use.

Goldsmith wants the Court to reject the new message defense.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The Foundation argues a different meaning justifies the copy.

Goldsmith argues the copy serves no distinct purpose.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if adding a smile creates a new message.

Justice Sotomayor asked if context matters for the use.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of artistic reuse. It determines how much original work remains protected.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON